Previous letter writer misses the point
To the editor:
In reply to Mr. Spahr’s letter of July 12, Mr. Spahr you are completely wrong.
Republicans always claim that defunding the police means that all the money given to the police will be taken away, which is incorrect. What defund the police means is that some funds are taken from police departments and reallocated to non-policing forms of public safety and community support, such as social services, youth services, housing, education, health care and other community resources. This means that when the police are called out to someone having a mental breakdown or mental issue, the right person is actually sent, meaning that the police do not go in heavy handed and end up sending that person who is having a mental breakdown to the morgue, which Mr. Spahr has to admit has happened.
As for the $27 million that was given to the family of George Floyd for his murder by a police officer, that money is a pittance compared to them losing a loved one.
Now to Mr. Spahr claiming that those are the reasons that homicides have increased. Really, Mr. Spahr, you are making an assumption with that claim. In an article titled “How bad is the rise in US homicides? Factchecking the ‘crime wave’ narrative police are pushing” published on June 30, 2021 on the Guardian website, the article states that and I quote “But there is some evidence that national factors, including the many stresses and disruptions of the pandemic, may have played a role in the homicide increase.”
The article then goes on to say, again I quote from the article “Alongside a global pandemic, and a major protest movement against police violence and systemic racism, the U.S. saw a historic rise in gun sales.” So your claims that “defunding the police” and the money given to a family that had a family member murdered by a cop are the reasons behind the homicide rate increasing does not actually stand up to the facts. I know something that the right does not like — facts.
While Mr. Spahr is right that I have no idea what it takes to be a cop, I do know that they are there to uphold the law and not act as judge, jury and executioner. According to what Mr. Spahr has written, he thinks that all cops should be like the comic book character Judge Dredd, who in his stories does act like judge, jury and executioner. No, Mr. Spahr, that is the joke, not “defunding the police” or giving money to the families of police murder victims. Another thing Mr. Spahr, when cops are hired, they are hired to uphold the law not take the law into their own hands. Taking the law into their own hands just makes them out to be nothing more than common thugs, period.
Yes, Mr. Spahr you are right, a police officer has a job to do which is to uphold the law not break it. As for claiming that he doesn’t need an armchair quarterback to tell him his job, if not “an armchair quarterback”, then who? Not the courts as they will, nine times out of 10, back the cop. It is a rare instance of a cop being called out by a judge or a jury for his or her misdeeds. So, who, Mr. Spahr, will hold the cops accountable for their actions? If not for that armchair quarterback, then who, Mr. Spahr? Who will do that?